Legal claims defining the scope of protection. Each claim is shown in both the original legal language and a plain English translation.
1. An apparatus configured to determine interface compatibility in component model-based software design, the apparatus comprising: a processor configured to: update a software platform comprising a first interface and a second interface; provide a function set for the first interface; provide a function set for the second interface; provide interface compatibility rules comprising interface connectivity, based on a capability to connect components, or interface substitutability, based on a capability to substitute a component; verify, based on the interface compatibility rules, existence of each function in the function set for the second interface in the function set for the first interface, wherein the interface compatibility rules comprise (1) determining whether to select an interface according to an on state or off state of the interface for an optional variability type, (2) determining whether to select one interface from a plurality of related interfaces for an alternative variability type, and (3) determining whether to select any one or any two or more of interfaces for a selective variability type; add functions in the function set for the second interface that do not exist in the function set for the first interface to a remainder function list based on a result of the verify; and upon a determination that a function exists in the remainder function list, submit a notification of incompatibility; and automatically apply rules for interface connectivity and rules for interface substitutability in determining interface compatibility, wherein the optional variability type selects an interface according to an on state or off state of the interface, the alternative variability type selects one interface from a plurality of related interfaces, and the selective variability type selects any two or more of interfaces for a selective variability type.
The apparatus determines interface compatibility in component-based software design by analyzing function sets of interfaces within a software platform. The system updates the platform, which includes at least two interfaces, and retrieves their respective function sets. It then applies predefined compatibility rules to verify whether all functions in the second interface's set exist in the first interface's set. The rules assess interface connectivity (whether components can connect) and substitutability (whether one component can replace another). The system handles three variability types: optional (interface is enabled or disabled), alternative (one interface is chosen from multiple related options), and selective (any combination of interfaces is allowed). If functions from the second interface are missing in the first, they are added to a remainder function list. If the list is not empty, the system issues an incompatibility notification. The apparatus automatically enforces connectivity and substitutability rules during compatibility checks, ensuring proper interface selection based on variability type. This solution addresses the challenge of verifying interface compatibility in dynamic software architectures where components must interact correctly.
2. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the processor is further configured to connect the first interface and the second interface based on a determination that no function exists in the remainder function list and the compatibility rule.
This invention relates to a data processing apparatus designed to manage and route data between multiple interfaces based on compatibility rules and available functions. The apparatus includes a processor, a first interface, a second interface, and a function list that stores available functions for processing data. The processor is configured to determine whether a function exists in the function list that can process data received at the first interface and transmit the processed data to the second interface. If no such function exists, the processor connects the first interface directly to the second interface, bypassing any intermediate processing. This direct connection is made based on a compatibility rule that ensures the data can be transmitted without processing. The apparatus may also include a remainder function list that tracks functions that have been attempted but failed, and the processor uses this list to avoid redundant checks. The system optimizes data routing by dynamically selecting between processing and direct transmission based on available functions and compatibility rules, improving efficiency in data handling.
3. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the processor is further configured to describe the function set of the first interface and the function set of the second interface based on an Interface Definition Language (IDL) or a header.
This invention relates to a system for managing and describing interface functions in a computing environment. The problem addressed is the need for a standardized way to define and communicate the capabilities of different interfaces in a software or hardware system, ensuring compatibility and interoperability between components. The apparatus includes a processor configured to manage at least two interfaces, each with its own function set. The processor is further configured to describe these function sets using an Interface Definition Language (IDL) or a header file. IDL is a language used to define the interface between software components, specifying the operations, data types, and communication protocols. A header file, typically used in programming, contains declarations of functions, variables, and data structures that can be shared across multiple source files. By using IDL or a header, the apparatus ensures that the functions and capabilities of each interface are clearly documented and accessible. This allows different components of a system to understand and interact with each other correctly, reducing errors and improving efficiency. The use of standardized descriptions also simplifies integration and maintenance, as developers can quickly reference the interface definitions to understand how components should interact. This approach is particularly useful in complex systems where multiple interfaces must work together seamlessly.
4. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the function set of the first interface defines functions being provided by a component, and the function set of the second interface defining functions being required by a component.
This invention relates to a system for interfacing components in a modular or distributed computing environment. The problem addressed is the need for a standardized way to connect components with varying functional requirements and capabilities, ensuring compatibility and efficient communication between them. The system includes a first interface associated with a component that provides a set of functions, and a second interface associated with a component that requires a set of functions. The first interface defines the functions available from the providing component, while the second interface specifies the functions needed by the requiring component. This allows the system to dynamically match components based on their functional capabilities and requirements, ensuring proper integration. The system may also include a mapping mechanism to align the functions between the interfaces, enabling seamless interaction between components. This approach simplifies component integration, reduces compatibility issues, and enhances modularity in complex systems. The invention is particularly useful in distributed computing, embedded systems, and software architectures where components must interact flexibly and efficiently.
5. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the compatibility rules dictate the compatibility or the substitutability of the first interface.
This invention relates to an apparatus for managing interface compatibility in a system where components interact through interfaces. The problem addressed is ensuring that interfaces between components remain compatible or substitutable, even as the system evolves. The apparatus includes a compatibility engine that enforces compatibility rules to determine whether a first interface can be used with a second interface. The rules define conditions under which interfaces are compatible or substitutable, such as matching data types, protocol versions, or functional requirements. The apparatus may also include a monitoring system to track interface usage and detect compatibility issues in real-time. Additionally, the apparatus may provide recommendations for resolving incompatibilities, such as suggesting interface modifications or alternative components. The compatibility rules can be dynamically updated to adapt to changes in system requirements or component specifications. The apparatus ensures seamless integration and interoperability between components, reducing errors and downtime in complex systems.
6. The apparatus of claim 4 , wherein the first interface is a provide interface and the second interface is a require interface, and wherein the processor is further configured to implement a rule dictating that a future provide interface is capable of being substituted for the provide interface, based upon a determination that a function set in the future provide interface includes each function in the function set in the provide interface.
This invention relates to a system for managing interfaces in a computing environment, specifically addressing the challenge of ensuring compatibility and substitutability between different interfaces in a modular or distributed system. The apparatus includes a processor and at least two interfaces: a "provide" interface and a "require" interface. The provide interface represents a set of functions or services that are offered by a component, while the require interface represents a set of functions or services that a component depends on. The processor enforces a rule that allows a future provide interface to substitute for the existing provide interface, provided that the future provide interface includes all functions present in the original provide interface. This ensures backward compatibility and modularity, enabling components to be updated or replaced without disrupting dependent systems. The system may also include additional interfaces and rules to further manage dependencies and substitutions, ensuring flexibility in system design while maintaining stability. The invention is particularly useful in large-scale or distributed systems where components must evolve independently while maintaining interoperability.
7. The apparatus of claim 4 , wherein the first interface is a provide interface and the second interface is a require interface, and wherein the processor is further configured to implement a rule dictating that a future require interface can be substituted for the require interface, based upon a determination that a function set for the require interface includes each function in the function set of the future require interface.
This invention relates to a system for managing interfaces in a computing environment, specifically addressing the challenge of dynamically substituting interfaces while ensuring functional compatibility. The apparatus includes a processor and at least two interfaces: a provide interface and a require interface. The provide interface offers a set of functions, while the require interface specifies a set of functions it depends on. The processor enforces a rule that allows a future require interface to replace the existing require interface, provided the future interface's function set is a subset of the original require interface's functions. This ensures backward compatibility and flexibility in interface substitution without disrupting system operations. The system may also include additional interfaces and processors to manage complex interactions between components, where each interface type (provide or require) dictates its role in the system. The invention enables dynamic reconfiguration of interfaces while maintaining functional integrity, which is particularly useful in modular or plug-and-play computing architectures.
8. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the interface compatibility rules comprise the alternative variability type for the second interface and the second interface further comprises a function set of an alternative second interface, wherein the verifying further comprises verifying that each function in the function set for the first alternative interface exists in the function set for the second interface, and adding functions in the function set for the first alternative interface that do not exist in the function set for the second interface to the remainder function list.
This invention relates to interface compatibility verification in computing systems, specifically addressing the challenge of ensuring seamless integration between different hardware or software interfaces with varying functionality. The apparatus includes a compatibility verification system that checks interface compatibility rules, particularly focusing on alternative variability types for interfaces. The system verifies that functions in the function set of a first interface (or its alternative version) are present in the function set of a second interface. If any functions from the first interface are missing in the second interface, those functions are added to a remainder function list, which tracks unmatched or additional functions. This process ensures that all necessary functions are accounted for, either by confirming their presence or documenting their absence for further action. The system helps identify compatibility gaps, allowing developers to address missing functions or adapt interfaces accordingly, thereby improving system integration and reducing errors during operation. The solution is particularly useful in environments where multiple interfaces must interact, such as in embedded systems, software APIs, or hardware peripherals.
9. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the interface compatibility rules comprise the optional variability type for the second interface and the second interface further comprises a function set of an optional second interface.
This invention relates to an apparatus designed to enhance interface compatibility in electronic systems, particularly addressing the challenge of ensuring seamless communication between different interfaces with varying degrees of variability. The apparatus includes a first interface and a second interface, where the second interface is configured to support optional variability types, allowing for flexible adaptation to different communication protocols or data formats. The second interface also includes a function set that defines its operational capabilities, enabling it to interact with other components or systems in a standardized manner. The apparatus further incorporates interface compatibility rules that govern how the second interface operates, including the optional variability type it supports. These rules ensure that the second interface can dynamically adjust its behavior to maintain compatibility with other interfaces, even when those interfaces have different requirements or specifications. The apparatus may be used in systems where multiple interfaces must coexist, such as in embedded systems, communication networks, or industrial automation, where ensuring compatibility is critical for reliable operation. The optional variability type allows the second interface to be configured in multiple ways, providing flexibility in system design while maintaining interoperability. The function set of the second interface defines its available operations, ensuring that it can perform the necessary tasks to interact with other components effectively. The compatibility rules enforce constraints on the second interface's behavior, preventing conflicts and ensuring smooth communication between different interfaces.
10. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the interface compatibility rules comprise the selective variability type for the second interface and the second interface further comprises a function set of an additional second interface, wherein the verifying further comprises merging the function set of the additional second interface with the function set of the second interface.
This invention relates to interface compatibility in electronic systems, particularly for ensuring seamless integration between different interfaces with varying functionality. The problem addressed is the difficulty in dynamically adapting interfaces to support multiple protocols or functions without requiring hardware modifications or extensive reconfiguration. The apparatus includes a first interface and a second interface, where the second interface has a selective variability type, meaning its functionality can be adjusted based on compatibility rules. These rules define how the second interface should interact with other components. The second interface also includes a function set from an additional second interface, allowing it to inherit or combine functionalities from another interface. When verifying compatibility, the system merges the function set of the additional second interface with the primary function set of the second interface, ensuring all necessary functions are available. This merging process dynamically adjusts the interface's capabilities to match the requirements of connected devices or systems, improving flexibility and reducing the need for manual configuration. The solution enables efficient integration of diverse interfaces while maintaining operational consistency.
11. A method for determining interface compatibility in component model-based software design, the method comprising: parsing a function set for a first interface of a first component; parsing a function set for a second interface of a second component; applying interface variability to an interface for a component; verifying, based on interface compatibility rules, existence of each function in the function set for the second interface in the function set for the first interface, wherein the interface compatibility rules comprise (1) determining whether to select an interface according to an on state or off state of the interface for an optional variability type, (2) determining whether to select one interface from a plurality of related interfaces for an alternative variability type, and (3) determining whether to select any one or any two or more of interfaces for a selective variability type; adding functions in the function set for the second interface that do not exist in the function set for the first interface to a remainder function list based on a result of the verify; and upon a determination that a function exists in the remainder function list, submitting a notification of incompatibility, wherein the parsing, applying, and verifying are performed by one or more processing devices to automatically determine the interface compatibility of the first interface and the second interface, and wherein the optional variability type selects an interface according to an on state or off state of the interface, the alternative variability type selects one interface from a plurality of related interfaces, and the selective variability type selects any two or more of interfaces for a selective variability type.
This invention relates to interface compatibility verification in component-based software design, addressing the challenge of ensuring that interfaces between software components can interact correctly. The method involves analyzing function sets of two interfaces—one from a first component and another from a second component—to determine compatibility. Interface variability is applied to account for optional, alternative, or selective interface configurations. Optional variability allows an interface to be enabled or disabled (on/off state), alternative variability selects one interface from a group of related interfaces, and selective variability allows choosing any combination of interfaces. The method verifies whether all functions in the second interface’s function set exist in the first interface’s function set, following predefined compatibility rules. Functions not found in the first interface are added to a remainder list. If the remainder list is non-empty, an incompatibility notification is generated. The process is automated using processing devices to ensure accurate and efficient compatibility checks. This approach helps developers identify and resolve interface mismatches early in the design phase, improving software integration and reducing errors.
12. The method of claim 11 , further comprising connecting components or replacing one component with another based on the result of the one or more processing devices.
A system and method for dynamically managing hardware components in a computing environment addresses the challenge of optimizing performance and resource utilization in real-time. The invention involves monitoring the operational state of hardware components, such as processors, memory modules, or storage devices, using one or more processing devices. These processing devices analyze performance metrics, error rates, or other operational data to determine the efficiency and reliability of each component. Based on this analysis, the system can automatically reconfigure the hardware architecture by connecting or disconnecting components, or by replacing one component with another. This dynamic adjustment ensures that the system maintains optimal performance, reduces downtime, and extends the lifespan of hardware by balancing workload distribution and preventing overuse of any single component. The method may also include predictive maintenance, where potential failures are anticipated and mitigated before they occur, further enhancing system reliability. The invention is particularly useful in high-availability computing environments, such as data centers or cloud computing platforms, where continuous operation and efficient resource management are critical.
13. The method of claim 11 , wherein the interface compatibility encompasses interface connectivity corresponding to the capability to connect components or interface substitutability corresponding to the capability to substitute a component.
This invention relates to interface compatibility in electronic or mechanical systems, addressing the challenge of ensuring seamless integration and interchangeability of components. The method involves assessing interface compatibility between components to determine whether they can be connected or substituted without functional disruption. Interface connectivity refers to the ability to physically or electronically link components, ensuring proper data, power, or signal transmission. Interface substitutability refers to the ability to replace one component with another while maintaining system functionality, accounting for differences in specifications, protocols, or physical interfaces. The method evaluates these aspects to verify compatibility, enabling efficient system design, upgrades, or repairs. By standardizing compatibility checks, the invention reduces errors, enhances modularity, and improves system reliability. The approach is applicable in various domains, including computing, telecommunications, and industrial automation, where component interchangeability is critical. The invention ensures that components can be connected or substituted without compatibility issues, streamlining integration and maintenance processes.
14. The method of claim 13 , wherein if an interface to be substituted is a provide interface, interface substitutability is determined by verifying whether functions in a function set in the existing interface are included in a function set of the interface to be substituted.
This invention relates to software interface substitutability in computing systems, specifically addressing the challenge of determining whether one interface can replace another without disrupting system functionality. The method evaluates substitutability by comparing function sets between an existing interface and a candidate interface. If the candidate is a "provide" interface (an interface that offers services), the method checks whether all functions in the existing interface's function set are present in the candidate's function set. This ensures backward compatibility and prevents runtime errors when substituting interfaces. The approach supports modular software design by enabling safe interface replacements, which is critical for system maintenance, upgrades, and component reuse. The method may also involve additional checks, such as verifying interface metadata or compatibility with dependent components, to further validate substitutability. By automating this verification process, the invention reduces manual effort and minimizes risks associated with interface substitutions in complex software architectures.
15. The method of claim 13 , wherein if an interface to be substituted is a require interface, interface substitutability is determined by verifying whether functions in a function set of the interface to be substituted are included in a function set in the existing interface.
This invention relates to software interface substitutability in computing systems, specifically addressing the challenge of determining whether one interface can replace another without causing compatibility issues. The problem arises when software components depend on specific interfaces, and developers need to ensure that substituting an interface will not break existing functionality. The invention provides a method to verify substitutability by comparing the function sets of the interfaces involved. For a require interface (an interface that must be implemented by a dependent component), the method checks whether all functions in the function set of the interface to be substituted are present in the function set of the existing interface. If they are, the substitution is deemed valid. This ensures that the dependent component can still operate correctly with the new interface. The method supports dynamic interface substitution, allowing for greater flexibility in software design and maintenance while minimizing compatibility risks. The solution is particularly useful in modular software architectures where interfaces are frequently updated or replaced.
16. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the providing a function set for the first interface and the providing a function set for the second interface further comprises, listing each function set by parsing an Information Description Language file.
This invention relates to a system for managing function sets in a computing apparatus with multiple interfaces. The problem addressed is the need for an efficient and standardized way to define and assign function sets to different interfaces, particularly in systems where interfaces may have overlapping or conflicting capabilities. The apparatus includes a processor and memory storing instructions to provide distinct function sets for a first interface and a second interface. The function sets are determined by parsing an Information Description Language (IDL) file, which lists the available functions for each interface. The IDL file serves as a structured definition, allowing the system to dynamically assign and manage functions without hardcoding dependencies. This approach ensures compatibility and reduces configuration errors by centralizing function definitions in a standardized format. The apparatus may also include additional interfaces, each receiving a function set parsed from the IDL file, enabling scalable and modular function management across multiple interfaces. The system is particularly useful in environments where interfaces must be dynamically configured, such as in embedded systems or networked devices.
17. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the listing each function set by parsing an Information Description Language file further comprises verifying the list using a symbol description or a header mapping.
This invention relates to a system for managing and verifying function sets in a computing environment. The system addresses the challenge of accurately identifying and validating function sets defined in an Information Description Language (IDL) file, ensuring proper integration and execution within a software or hardware apparatus. The apparatus includes a parser that processes an IDL file to extract and list function sets. These function sets are then verified using either a symbol description or a header mapping. The symbol description provides a structured definition of symbols used in the function sets, while the header mapping ensures that the function sets align with predefined header structures, which may include function signatures, data types, or other metadata. This verification step helps detect inconsistencies, errors, or mismatches that could lead to runtime failures or incorrect behavior. The apparatus may also include additional components for generating, storing, or executing the verified function sets, ensuring that only validated functions are used in subsequent operations. The system is particularly useful in environments where function sets are dynamically loaded or where compatibility between different software modules must be maintained. By leveraging symbol descriptions or header mappings, the apparatus improves reliability and reduces debugging efforts in complex systems.
18. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the updating of the software platform comprising the first interface and the second interface further comprises maintaining a change history of the software platform.
This invention relates to a software platform with multiple interfaces and a change history tracking system. The platform includes a first interface for user interaction and a second interface for system integration, where the software can be updated while maintaining compatibility between the interfaces. The key improvement is the ability to track and store a change history of the software platform, allowing users and administrators to monitor modifications over time. This change history may include details such as version updates, feature additions, bug fixes, and other modifications, ensuring transparency and traceability in the software's evolution. The system ensures that updates to the platform do not disrupt the functionality of either interface, preserving user experience and system integration capabilities. The change history feature helps in debugging, compliance, and maintaining software integrity by providing a record of all modifications. This invention is particularly useful in environments where software reliability, auditability, and backward compatibility are critical, such as enterprise systems, cloud platforms, or regulated industries. The change history may be stored in a structured format, such as a database or log file, and can be accessed by authorized users for review or analysis. The system ensures that the software platform remains stable and functional while providing a detailed record of its development and updates.
19. A method for automatically determining interface compatibility in component model-based software design, comprising: determining a first function set and a second function set from a first interface and a second interface, respectively; determining an interface type, wherein: when the interface variability type is determined to be an optional variability type, compare functions in the first function set with functions in the second function set; when the interface variability type is determined to be an alternative variability type, select and set configuration for the first interface, and compare functions in the first function set with functions in the second function set; and when the interface variability type is determined to be a selective variability type, select and merge the first function set, and compare functions in the first function set with functions in the second function set; and upon a determination that a function exists in a remainder function list based on the comparisons of functions in the first function set with functions in the second function set, submitting a notification of incompatibility, wherein the optional variability type selects an interface according to an on state or off state of the interface, the alternative variability type selects one interface from a plurality of related interfaces, and the selective variability type selects any two or more of interfaces for a selective variability type.
In component model-based software design, ensuring interface compatibility between software components is critical to prevent integration errors. This invention provides an automated method to determine whether interfaces are compatible by analyzing their functional capabilities and variability types. The method extracts a set of functions from each interface and compares them based on the interface's variability type. For optional variability, the method checks if functions match when the interface is active. For alternative variability, it selects a configuration for one interface and compares its functions against the other. For selective variability, it merges functions from multiple interfaces and compares them. If any unmatched functions remain after comparison, the system generates a notification indicating incompatibility. The optional variability type toggles an interface on or off, the alternative variability type selects one interface from a group of related interfaces, and the selective variability type allows combining functions from multiple interfaces. This approach streamlines compatibility checks in software design by automating the analysis of interface functions and variability, reducing manual effort and potential errors.
Unknown
September 1, 2020
Browse 5M+ US patents with plain-English claim translations and AI-generated analysis.